On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:27:12PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Cc Andrew,
>
> On (01/15/16 11:35), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > > Signed-off-by: Junil Lee <junil0814.lee@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > mm/zsmalloc.c | 1 +
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > > index e7414ce..bb459ef 100644
> > > --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> > > @@ -1635,6 +1635,7 @@ static int migrate_zspage(struct zs_pool *pool, struct size_class *class,
> > > free_obj = obj_malloc(d_page, class, handle);
> > > zs_object_copy(free_obj, used_obj, class);
> > > index++;
> > > + free_obj |= BIT(HANDLE_PIN_BIT);
> > > record_obj(handle, free_obj);
> >
> > I think record_obj should store free_obj to *handle with masking off least bit.
> > IOW, how about this?
> >
> > record_obj(handle, obj)
> > {
> > *(unsigned long)handle = obj & ~(1<<HANDLE_PIN_BIT);
> > }
>
> [just a wild idea]
>
> or zs_free() can take spin_lock(&class->lock) earlier, it cannot free the
Earlier? What do you mean? For getting right class, we should get a stable
handle so we couldn't get class lock first than handle lock.
If I misunderstand, please elaborate a bit.
> object until the class is locked anyway, and migration is happening with
> the locked class. extending class->lock scope in zs_free() thus should
> not affect the perfomance. so it'll be either zs_free() is touching the
> object or the migration, not both.
>
> -ss
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>